After Three Days on Hotel Wi-Fi, My Crypto Wallet Was Drained

marsbitPublished on 2026-01-09Last updated on 2026-01-09

Abstract

While on vacation, the author connected to an unsecured hotel Wi-Fi network without a password, only a captive portal login. After discussing cryptocurrency topics on a phone call in a shared space, an attacker nearby identified him as a crypto user with a Phantom wallet. The attacker executed a man-in-the-middle attack, injecting malicious code into a webpage the author visited. While using JupiterExchange for a swap, a fraudulent transaction approval request was triggered, disguised as a legitimate platform action. The author approved what appeared to be an authorization or session confirmation—not a direct fund transfer—granting the attacker permission to access his wallet. Days after leaving the hotel, the attacker drained his SOL, tokens, and NFTs. The author lost around $5,000 from a secondary hot wallet, emphasizing mistakes: using public Wi-Fi, discussing crypto in public, and approving transactions without thorough verification. He advises using mobile hotspots, avoiding public crypto discussions, and scrutinizing every wallet request.

Original Author:The Smart Ape

Original Compilation: Deep Tide TechFlow

A few days ago, I went with my family to a very nice hotel for the year-end holiday. One day after leaving the hotel, my wallet was completely drained. I couldn't figure out why, as I hadn't clicked on any phishing links or signed any malicious transactions.

After hours of investigation and seeking help from experts, I finally uncovered the truth. It all turned out to be due to the hotel's Wi-Fi network, a brief phone call, and a series of foolish mistakes.

Like most cryptocurrency enthusiasts, I brought my laptop with me, thinking I could squeeze in some work while on vacation with my family. My wife repeatedly insisted that I shouldn't work during these three days—I really should have listened to her.

Like other guests, I connected to the hotel's Wi-Fi network. This network didn't require a password; it only needed to be logged into via a captive portal.

I worked as usual in the hotel without doing anything risky: I didn't create new wallets, click on strange links, or visit suspicious decentralized applications (dApps). I just checked X (Twitter), my balances, Discord, Telegram, etc.

At one point, I received a call from a crypto friend, and we chatted about market trends, Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrency-related topics. But what I didn't know was that someone nearby was eavesdropping on our conversation and realized I was involved in cryptocurrency. This was my first mistake. The other party learned from our conversation that I was using a Phantom wallet and that I was a user with significant holdings.

This made me his target.

In public Wi-Fi networks, all devices share the same network, and the visibility between devices is actually much higher than you might think. There is almost no real protection between users, which creates an opportunity for "Man-in-the-Middle Attacks." The attacker acts like a middleman, quietly inserting themselves between you and the internet, much like someone secretly reading and tampering with your mail before it reaches you.

While I was browsing the web on the hotel Wi-Fi, one website appeared to load normally, but in reality, malicious code was injected behind the page. I didn't notice anything unusual at the time. If I had installed some security tools, I might have detected these issues, but unfortunately, I hadn't.

Normally, websites might request your wallet to sign certain operations. The Phantom wallet would pop up a window, and you could choose to approve or reject. Generally, you would sign without suspicion because you trust the website and the browser. However, I shouldn't have done so that day.

Just as I was performing a token swap on the @JupiterExchange platform, the malicious code triggered a wallet request that replaced my normal swap operation. I could have detected it as a malicious request by carefully checking the transaction details, but since I was already performing a swap on Jupiter, I didn't suspect anything.

That day, I didn't sign any transaction to transfer funds; instead, I signed an authorization. This was the reason my assets were stolen days later.

The malicious code didn't directly ask me to send SOL (Solana), as that would have been too obvious. Instead, it requested me to "authorize access," "approve account," or "confirm session." In simple terms, I was actually giving another address permission to operate on my behalf.

I approved it because I mistakenly thought it was related to my operation on Jupiter. The message that popped up in the Phantom wallet at the time looked very technical, showing no amounts and no prompt for an immediate transfer.

And that was all the attacker needed. He waited patiently until I left the hotel before taking action. He transferred my SOL, withdrew my tokens, and moved my NFTs to another address.

I never thought something like this would happen to me. Fortunately, this wasn't my main wallet but a hot wallet used for specific operations, not for long-term asset holding. But even so, I made many mistakes, and I believe I am primarily responsible for this.

First, I should never have connected to the hotel's public Wi-Fi. I should have used my phone's hotspot for internet access.

My second mistake was talking about cryptocurrency in the hotel's public area, where many people might have overheard our conversation. My father once warned me never to let others know you're involved in cryptocurrency. This time, I was lucky; some people have even faced kidnapping or worse because of their crypto assets.

Another mistake was approving the wallet request without paying full attention. Because I was sure the request came from Jupiter, I didn't analyze it carefully. In fact, every wallet request should be carefully reviewed, even on applications you trust. Requests can be intercepted and may not actually come from the app you think.

In the end, I lost about $5,000 from a secondary wallet. While it wasn't the worst-case scenario, it was still very frustrating.

Related Questions

QWhat was the primary security vulnerability that led to the author's wallet being drained?

AThe author connected to the hotel's unsecured public Wi-Fi network, which allowed an attacker to perform a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack, intercept and inject malicious code into web pages, and trick the author into signing a malicious transaction approval.

QHow did the attacker identify the author as a potential target for the cryptocurrency theft?

AThe attacker overheard the author's phone conversation about cryptocurrency, market trends, and Bitcoin in a public area, which revealed that the author used a Phantom wallet and was a sizable holder.

QWhat specific action did the author unknowingly approve that led to the theft days later?

AThe author approved a malicious transaction that granted authorization or permission for another address to operate on their behalf, rather than directly transferring funds. This approval was disguised as part of a normal token swap on Jupiter Exchange.

QWhat security measures does the author mention could have prevented this incident?

AThe author states they should have used a mobile hotspot instead of public Wi-Fi, avoided discussing cryptocurrency in public, and carefully inspected every wallet transaction request, even from trusted applications.

QWhat was the financial impact of the attack on the author?

AThe author lost approximately $5,000 from a secondary hot wallet used for specific operations, not their main wallet, which mitigated the severity of the loss.

Related Reads

North Korean Hackers Loot $500 Million in a Single Month, Becoming the Top Threat to Crypto Security

North Korean hackers, particularly the notorious Lazarus Group and its subgroup TraderTraitor, have stolen over $500 million from cryptocurrency DeFi platforms in less than three weeks, bringing their total theft for the year to over $700 million. Recent major attacks on Drift Protocol and KelpDAO, resulting in losses of approximately $286 million and $290 million respectively, highlight a strategic shift: instead of targeting core smart contracts, attackers are now exploiting vulnerabilities in peripheral infrastructure. For instance, the KelpDAO attack involved compromising downstream RPC infrastructure used by LayerZero's decentralized validation network (DVN), allowing manipulation without breaching core cryptography. This sophisticated approach mirrors advanced corporate cyber-espionage. Additionally, North Korea has systematically infiltrated the global crypto workforce, with an estimated 100 operatives using fake identities to gain employment at blockchain companies, enabling long-term access to sensitive systems and facilitating large-scale thefts. According to Chainalysis, North Korean-linked hackers stole a record $2 billion in 2025, accounting for 60% of all global crypto theft that year. Their total historical crypto theft has reached $6.75 billion. Post-theft, they employ specialized money laundering methods, heavily relying on Chinese OTC brokers and cross-chain mixing services rather than standard decentralized exchanges. Security experts, while acknowledging the increased sophistication, emphasize that many attacks still exploit fundamental weaknesses like poor access controls and centralized operational risks. Strengthening private key management, limiting privileged access, and enhancing coordination among exchanges, analysts, and law enforcement immediately after an attack are critical to improving defense and fund recovery chances. The industry's challenge now extends beyond secure smart contracts to safeguarding operational security at the infrastructure level.

marsbit11m ago

North Korean Hackers Loot $500 Million in a Single Month, Becoming the Top Threat to Crypto Security

marsbit11m ago

Circle CEO's Seoul Visit: No Korean Won Stablecoin Issuance, But Met All Major Korean Banks

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire's recent activities in Seoul indicate a strategic shift for the company, moving away from issuing a Korean won-backed stablecoin and instead focusing on embedding itself as a key infrastructure provider within Korea’s financial and crypto ecosystem. Despite Korea accounting for nearly 30% of global crypto trading volume—with a market characterized by high retail participation and altcoin dominance—Circle has chosen not to compete for the role of stablecoin issuer. Instead, Allaire met with major Korean banks (including Shinhan, KB, and Woori), financial groups, leading exchanges (Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone), and tech firms like Kakao. This approach reflects a broader industry transition: the core of stablecoin competition is shifting from issuance rights to systemic positioning. With Korean regulators still debating whether banks or tech companies should issue stablecoins, Circle is avoiding regulatory uncertainty by strengthening its role as a service and technology partner. The company is deepening integration with trading platforms, building connections, and promoting stablecoin infrastructure. This positions Circle to benefit regardless of which entity eventually issues a won stablecoin. Allaire also noted the potential for a Chinese yuan stablecoin in the next 3–5 years, underscoring a regional trend of stablecoins becoming more regulated and integrated with traditional finance. Ultimately, Circle’s strategy highlights that future influence in the stablecoin market will belong not necessarily to the issuers, but to the foundational infrastructure layers that enable cross-system transactions.

marsbit39m ago

Circle CEO's Seoul Visit: No Korean Won Stablecoin Issuance, But Met All Major Korean Banks

marsbit39m ago

SpaceX Ties Up with Cursor: A High-Stakes AI Gambit of 'Lock First, Acquire Later'

SpaceX has secured an option to acquire AI programming company Cursor for $60 billion, with an alternative clause requiring a $10 billion collaboration fee if the acquisition does not proceed. This structure is not merely a potential acquisition but a strategic move to control core access points in the AI era. The deal is designed as a flexible, dual-path arrangement, allowing SpaceX to either fully acquire Cursor or maintain a binding partnership through high-cost collaboration. This "option-style" approach minimizes immediate regulatory and integration risks while ensuring long-term alignment between the two companies. At its core, the transaction exchanges critical AI-era resources: SpaceX provides its Colossus supercomputing cluster—one of the world’s most powerful AI training infrastructures—while Cursor contributes its AI-native developer environment and strong product adoption. This synergy connects compute power, models, and application layers, forming a closed-loop AI capability stack. Cursor, founded in 2022, has achieved rapid growth with over $1 billion in annual revenue and widespread enterprise adoption. Its value lies in transforming software development through AI agents capable of coding, debugging, and system design—positioning it as a gateway to future software production. For SpaceX, this move is part of a broader strategy to evolve from a aerospace company into an AI infrastructure empire, integrating xAI, supercomputing, and chip manufacturing. Controlling Cursor fills a gap in its developer tooling layer, strengthening its AI narrative ahead of a potential IPO. The deal reflects a shift in AI competition from model superiority to ecosystem and entry-point control. With programming tools as a key battleground, securing developer loyalty becomes crucial for dominating the software production landscape. Risks include questions around Cursor’s valuation, technical integration challenges, and potential regulatory scrutiny. Nevertheless, the deal underscores a strategic bet: controlling both compute and software development access may redefine power dynamics in the AI-driven future.

marsbit1h ago

SpaceX Ties Up with Cursor: A High-Stakes AI Gambit of 'Lock First, Acquire Later'

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片